Political scientist and media critic

July 07, 2006

Playing "the treason card" since 9/11

Writing behind the Times Select firewall, Paul Krugman describes the assault on dissent since 9/11:

But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."

Those of us who tried to call attention to this authoritarian project years ago have long marveled over the reluctance of many of our colleagues to acknowledge what was going on.

Exactly right. If anything, Krugman underplays the severity of the rhetoric. Here's an updated timeline of Republican attacks on dissent since the 2001 terrorist attacks (drawn from my previous posts on the subject):

December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."

May 2002: After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about possible Al Qaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements "are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do."

September 2002: Campaigning against Democrats who did not support his legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security (a department whose creation he had previously opposed), President Bush said that "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

September 2004: As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that "while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." President Bush says, "You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message... You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages." And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," adding that Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists. President Bush says that "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that "Many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender" and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that "[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."

After DNC chairman Howard Dean says "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," Republicans reiterate the same line of attack. House Speaker Dennis Hastert says Dean "made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender" and GOP chairman Ken Mehlman says Dean's statement "sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

January 2006: President Bush suggests that "defeatists" on Iraq are disloyal by contrasting them with a "loyal opposition," stating that the American people "know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

March 2006: Senator Russ Feingold introduces a motion to censure President Bush. In response, Republicans suggest that he is harming national security and endangering US troops. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman says that "Democrat leaders never miss an opportunity to put politics before our nation's security" and that they would "would rather censure the President for doing his job than actually fight the War on Terror," refers to "repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe," and states that "Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind." Senator John Cornyn adds that the resolution would "make the jobs of our soldiers and diplomats harder and place them at greater risk."

June 2006: In response to Democratic calls for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush suggests that Democrats want to surrender. "There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," he said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off." However, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett is unable to name a single Democrat to which this description applies.

Over and over, the treason card has been played to silence dissent since 9/11. And remember, this timeline only includes statements by the White House, Republicans in Congress, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee. A comparable timeline covering attacks on dissent by pundits and interest group leaders would run for tens of thousands of words, and include a range of nearly unspeakable vitriol, such as talk radio host Melanie Morgan's suggestion that New York Times editor Bill Keller be sent to the gas chamber for treason.

The combination of these attacks on dissent and the Bush administration's assault on the press and the powers of the other branches of government is disturbing indeed.

Comments

I just have a hard time getting worked up about this issue, partially because there is so much anti-Bush, anti-Republican speech (both on and off the net) and the fact I kind of file it mentally with the standard "anyone who does not specifically agree with my way of combating X is obviously for X" rhetoric politicians often use. For example, if I am opposed to affirmitive action, at best not only do I obviously not care to advance the interest of minorities, but at worst I am really racist and working to undermine the advancement of minorities.

But maybe my view is just warped because I don't watch tv news, just read the Internet, and there have been rivers of virtual ink spilled railing against the Bush administration and it's policies in the War on Terror, so I just don't feel how dissent has been stifled; indeed, it seems to me there is more criticism of this administration than there has ever been, especially when it was restricted mainly to 1/2 the op-ed page of my local paper.

Byran - There is a big difference between your example and the GOP criminalization of dissent. Being a racist is not a crime. Treason is a capital crime, punishable by death. Conservatives often speak in code. This talk of being on the "side of the enemy" is code for "our political opponents (liberals) are traitors, and as we all know the punishment for traitors is death." It is eliminationist rhetoric, the type of talk favored by fascists and authoritarians. It is, frankly, un-American, irresponsible, and dangerous. And it's only getting worse as the abject failure of their foreign and domestic ideology becomes manifest.

I would also add the incident in the fall of 2002 when there was an argument between the White House and the Deomocrat-controlled Senate over civil service protections for employees of the Department of Homeland Security; during this argument President Bush, personally and on the record, impugned the patriotism of Democratic Senators who disagreed with him.

Wow, I guess I'm not really a conservative, since I don't know the code. I thought when, in one of the examples, Rep. Tom Davis says "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country." he meant that Democratic criticisms hindered the War on Terror and thus indirectly helped AQ ( a point I disagree with, BTW) not "Democrats should be tried an executed for treason". He was simpy, as politicians tend to do, saying it in the most hyperbolic way possible. But again, I don't speak conservative code, so I was not his target audience.

And I really hope the GOP is not attempting to stifle or criminlize dissent, because they really suck at it if they are, judging from what I read everyday.

I hear a lot of similar rhetoric from Democrats with regard to the Plamegate issue and I must admit I have difficulty drawing the line on that one. If Rove/Libby/whoever did reveal the name of a covert agent it was clearly wrong (if not criminal) and should be punished, but I'm not sure "traitor" fits either.

Bryan, as to your comment, the phrase "aid and comfort...to our enemies" is verbatim the text from the treason statute ergo the suggestion of treason is implicit.

Sohei, treason MAY be punishable by death. The statute (18 USC, Sec. 2381) says that those found guilty "shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I'm sure you already know my position on this, Brendan, but for old times sake, let's do that dance again. :)

Every single example you listed consisted of a Republican asserting that a Democrats statements, policies or position would be bad for US security, harmful in the War on Terror, etc. At no point was their "patriotism" mentioned, even implicitly.

Democrats routinely argue that the Bush administation's policies are harmful to US security, that the administration is putting our troops at risk, putting politics before security or harming us/helping the enemy in the War on Terror. And that's fine. That's what opponents do, else they wouldn't be opponents. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. That's the nature of debates about important, complicated issues.

It would be a very strange political discourse if we eliminated any statement that one's opponent was advocating harmful policies.

I'm perfectly prepared to accept the possibility that the Bush administration or a prominent Republican has questioned the patriotism of a Democrat. But "I disagree with my opponent and think his policies would hurt the United States" is not equivalent. I'd be much more impressed if you produced quotes actually questioning a Democrats patriotism.

Several prominant military officers of the North Vietnamese army have made statements that the war was actually won for them in the court of American popular opinion and not on the actual battlefield. In other words, it was their strategy to stir up dissent amongst the American public through protracted suffering displayed on the evening news every night.

What if all of the squabbling against the war in Iraq and anti-terror programs does give comfort to terrorists? Then the question of patriotism is moot, all of the quotes you gave would be mere statements of fact.

None of the quotes above equate giving comfort to the enemy to a lack of patriotism. The suggestion is that it may be irresponsible, naive, or dangerous to display such dissent, surely; but each one of those Republicans might attribute that to ignorance or partisan hackery rather than a lack of patriotism.

Jon and I aren't going to resolve this disagreement, but let me try to clarify my position.

The difference he misses is that Democrats typically argue that Bush's policies endanger national security -- a perfectly acceptable statement from an opposition party. It's fine for Republicans to do the same, but members of the party frequently go further, suggesting that the very act of criticizing the President endangers national security.

Brendan, as you've written it above, we're not that far off. My primary objection is to the notion that said Republicans have questioned the patriotism of Democrats. Whether Republicans have gone too far over the line between criticizing specific dissent and criticizing dissent in general is, as far as I can tell, a categorically different matter from the "patriotism/treason" issue.

I agree that Republicans have been too quick to criticize dissent in general, rather than specific, terms.

I believe a perfectly plausible case can be made that some kinds of dissent are harmful to a given war effort -- clearly, any lack of domestic unity signals our enemies that they may defeat us on the political- rather than the battle-field -- though I don't believe that's necessarily a reason to argue that the dissent should not occur. And those arguments are more ethical/moral than they are legal. I don't think there's any justification for legally suppressing dissenting speech.

But then we come around the circle again. Isn't it equally "suppression of dissent" to argue that it's illegitimate to point out that lack of unity has negative strategic effects in a war?

If your argument is that criticism of dissent has been too generalized, I agree; perhaps not in every instance, but in general, yeah. If your argument is that prominent Republicans questioned the patriotism of Democrats, I'd disagree.

With the complete absence of evidence presented, I think my position is pretty defensible, and I'm pretty mystified that people still make that claim. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I'm left thinking "the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the ["questioned our patriotism"] hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

The argument of this post is that Republicans have engaged in an assault on dissent since 9/11; it says nothing about patriotism. So I'm glad we agree that "criticism of dissent has been too generalized." I think some of these statements do imply that Democrats are unpatriotic, but let's leave that aside for now.

As for the question of whether my criticism of attacks on dissent is itself an attack on dissent, I think there's an obvious and important difference between trying to suppress dissent against government officials and criticism of those who would delegitimize said dissent. The former is an attack on a core principle of democracy; the latter is an attempt to defend said principle.

Well, the main point of the Krugman column was expressed in its first sentence: "The Bush administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won't go along."

Again, I'd generally agree with the idea that criticism of dissent has been too broad. But I wonder how one would point out the costs of some of the more virulent, outrageous and irresponsible criticisms and the effect of political strife. They're necessary in a free society -- the marketplace of ideas, etc, etc -- but let's not pretend that political indecision and conflict don't have costs.

Unfortunately, nuance is not a particular talent of politicians and pundits. Even those who understand it rarely express it well.